VISHWANATH TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as District Sub-Registrar, Bhagalpur and at present he is a practising advocate of this Court. It appears that Title Suit No. 1/85 was pending in the court of Munsif, Banka. Two documents which had been presented for registration at Registration Office, Bhagalpur were required to be exhibited in the title suit. The Munsif, Banka wrote a letter (Annexure-1) to the petitioner for sending registered documents on 4-2-1991. The documents called by the Munsif had been accepted for registration but the same had not been actually registered, in terms of section 60 of the Indian Registration act. The petitioner, therefore, thought that the documents could not be sent and it was to be registered in accordance with law. He accordingly sent a letter to the Munsif that since the documents called could not be treated to be a registered document, he was unable to forward those documents. The petitioner, however, placed the matter before the Collectpr-cum-District registrar for his direction in the matter. It may be mentioned that one of the documents summoned by the Munsif was refused to be registered and was returned to the executant. The District registrar thought it proper to obtain the opinion of the local Government pleader and accordingly the Government Pleader approved the opinion of the petitioner. A copy of the opinion of the Government Pleader was forwarded to the Munsif and A. G. P. , Banka was directed to appear before the Munsif. Unfortunately, the A. G. P. Banka could not appear before the Munsif and the munsif filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, banka alleging that the petitioner by not sending the documents had committed offence under Sections 174, 175 and 188, I. P. C. A. C. J. M. , Banka took cognizance and summoned the petitioner for trial under Sections 174, 175 and 186, I. P. C.

(3.) Section 174, I. P. C. , reads as follows :"non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant - Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for. him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person of by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. "similarly, Section 175, I. P. C, provides that whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, as such intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the document is to be produced or delivered up to a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.